Conservative Zugzwang Never Ends

What the hell is zugzwang?

The dictionary definition straight from Merriam-Webster is “the necessity of moving in chess when it is to one’s disadvantage.” The term is German (of course) for “compulsion to move.” A longer definition might give away the conclusion of this article: a situation wherein one is compelled to make a move, even though a move will significantly worsen one’s position, and one would prefer not to make any move at all.

“A player is said to be in zugzwang when any possible move will worsen their position.”

Is the relationship to conservatism becoming clearer?

Zugzwang is pronounced tsuk-tsvang, which rhymes with “Look, dong!” The latter of which is something not uncommonly heard from the mouth of gay conservative personality Milo Yiannopoulos, and the former of which is an onomatopoeic rendering of the sound of Milo Yiannopoulos and the ostensibly straight Gavin McInnes passionately locking lips to stop Islam, or something.

Yeah, watch the video. Gavin McInnes, a self-described “homophobe” and avatar of a putatively alternative political right, shouts “Fuck Islam!” before inserting his tongue into Yiannopoulos’ mouth. Mmm. Tsuk-tsvang. Tsuk-tsvang. Zugzwang, you idiot!

Conservatives are bad at chess. The Left, all liberals, socialists, communists, progressives, and radicals included, make the moves. They control the middle. They attack and take pieces with impunity. They call the shots and pick the battles. Conservatives find themselves defending yesterday’s progress against a new generation of boundary-breakers. The Left makes a move, and conservatives find themselves in zugzwang — every possible move is a losing move, a losing move for conservative values.

Do conservatives flip over the chessboard? No, they make a bad move, and keep playing. Nothing is learned. Conservative zugzwang is a special kind of zugzwang that never, ever ends.

The Milo-McInnes fiasco is just the latest in a long string of disadvantageous conservative moves that leaves the official right wing catching up to the Left. Jokes about “cuckservatives” eventually defending “the sanctity of gay marriage” have been around as long as I can remember, and it wasn’t long before they stopped being funny — sometime in mid-2015, if I remember correctly. It took less than a year from the U.S. Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling for the edgy edge of the conservative Right to reach the conclusion that homosexuals should join the right-wing coalition.

We can’t forget what gave them that bright idea: the decision of a D-voting Afghan Muslim living in Florida to shoot rifle rounds into a fleshy wall of homosexuals in a gay Orlando nightclub. He killed 49 of them before dawn, doubtlessly pleased with himself. This morbid non-sequitur of left-wing victim groups was seized upon immediately by everyone to the right of John Kasich, as if, all of a sudden, logic, reason, and an appeal to the common good would inspire anything but apoplectic rage against White Christian America in leftist bellies.

Muslims and homosexuals are both tiny minorities of the American population, about 1% and 3.8% respectively (including lesbians, trannies, and the mythical bisexuals). For comparison, Mormons make up about 2% of the U.S. population, and about 1% of the U.S. population still speaks Polish at home. There are probably more Poles than Muslims in America, but MSNBC is yet to berate me about Pierogiphobes hiding under my bed and in my closet.

So why are these miniscule minorities in the public eye so often, and why are we all forced to care about them? That’s an easy one to answer: powerful leftists, liberals, communists, progressives, socialists, and radicals in the media, academia, and the permanent bureaucracy brought them over here or booked them for New York Times features. The Orlando terrorist’s father is almost certainly a CIA asset on ice in America until he’s ready to be used in Afghanistan, and the CIA is not staffed with Trump voters. NAMBLA’s ideological descendants are feeling the Bern.

America must accept a Muslim minority brought over from abroad, and must accept that every movie and TV show has a token gay character (or protagonist). Couldn’t America have brought over, say, a South African Boer minority from abroad, and installed a token Mormon character in every movie and TV show? Yes, in a theoretical America where the Left and Right are equally good at chess. In the real America we live in, conservatives have to deal with the pieces the Left allows them. They remain in conservative zugzwang.

The Left had no dilemma when a member of holy victim group A pumped 49 members of holy victim group B with hot lead instead of the hot penis they were expecting. Victim group B was kind of implicitly white anyway, and do cis white men, even if homosexual, really deserve that much sympathy? What about disabled trans black Muslim females? Shouldn’t we be putting more effort into educating Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi about social justice and human rights?

The Left created the political lobbies and victim groups of Muslims and gays, and as soon as it became inconvenient for them, they jettisoned the gays. Conservatives rush to pick up the pieces, and in the process acquire nothing but a disadvantage. Conservative values don’t advance with the support of a discarded left-wing victim group, they recede in order to accomodate the victim group. How do the John Kasichs plan to defend traditional marriage while also acquiring the powerful gay lobby as a piece in the game against the Left? Short answer: they don’t.

The fact that the ideological Left controls all means of transferring intergenerational knowledge — and most means of communication otherwise — means that past examples of conservative zugzwang have been totally memory-holed. Quick: can you think of some other former victim groups that the official right-wingers support and defend, who in the past were entirely part of the radical Left? Blacks. Women. Jews. Immigrants. Catholics. Even Mormons used to be beyond the pale.

What victim group hasn’t the Right yet adopted after it was dropped from the Left? There are caveats and nuances to be applied to the short list above, but the trend and dynamic is clear. Once the Left discards you, the Right picks you up. The key thing to note is that the Right is not making the moves. The Right is not taking the initiative. The Right is not flipping over the chessboard, nor psyching out the opposing side with insanity and violence. The Right is simply and perpetually stuck, trapped, and oh geez oh man, there they go again.

Abandoned by the Left, conservatives should have upheld conservative values and offered homosexuals a place in the right-wing coalition as repentant sinners, who do not allow their sexual disorder to define their identity, and bear their cross like all mortal men. Instead, there was #ShootBack. Feminists of yesterday — those who weren’t sold on Kill All Men and subsequently abandoned by the Left — should have been offered a place in the conservative coalition as faithful wives and mothers. “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” 1 Timothy 2:12. Instead, the New Conservative Woman roars. Examples like these abound.

Why was and is the Right compelled to sell out instead of uphold conservative values? The conservative coalition used to consist of supporting one person — the King — and he was sold out centuries ago. Since then the number of groups to support has multiplied in the Left’s wake. The adoptions, even just nominal, of democracy and egalitarianism, sold out the truth about the universe and human nature and everything else along with it. With the denial of a King went the denial of hierarchy. It just took a while to get rid of the exceptions, as Jim is fond of saying.

There are also plenty of other ideas and concepts that the Left jettisoned that conservatives picked up without a second thought. Democracy, secularism, free markets, one-mouth-one-vote, equality, human rights, blah blah blah. How many ordinary conservatives would oppose democracy, secularism, equality, or human rights? Most of them invoke the very same concepts in a vain struggle against left-wing dominance, often without understanding of the nature of the concept they are invoking, and sometimes even without sincere belief. In the 19th century, a time to which most political parties in the West can still trace their roots, one-man-one-vote was a radical concept, and having a parliament was under debate.

Whether democracy, parliaments, or gay marriage were ever good ideas was never settled by a free and open exchange of ideas, it was settled by force — employed joyfully and indiscriminately by coalitions of left-wing elites with something to gain and left-wing crazies with nothing to lose, against hapless conservatives stuck in the middle. The lost ground, from 1776 to 2016, was never won back, and conservatives kept forgetting how much they had lost to begin with.

Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson won Brexit for Britain, then immediately dropped their political ambitions, and before I knew it, there was a gay man and a few women competing for the position that should have been filled by Our Nige, straight as a fag.

If I remember correctly, the Dangerous Faggot himself has commented on how silly it is that gay men like himself and Jack Donovan are the ones standing up for Western masculinity. Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands was a pioneering gay anti-Islam campaigner. France’s Front National is notable for its appeal to Jews and homosexuals. Forget fetuses’ rights to life, the future of conservative Western parties is shaping up to be a dignified loss to a Communist-Islamist alliance on the issues of white, Christian, Jewish, and gay rights to life. Tsuk-tsvang. Tsuk-tsvang.

One might call that the ultimate checkmate to years and years of conservative zugzwang, but the Right lost its King a long, long time ago. It was already over then. It’s time to flip over the chessboard or leave the table and find a new set of pieces to play with. Most importantly, a new King. Just like in chess, without one you’ve already lost.

Conservatives won’t stop being in zugzwang until they quit the rigged game of egalitarian democracy.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

14 Comments

  1. Great article.

    I used to be surprised at how many people failed to understand this – i.e., that when you accept the premises of the Left, you cannot meaningfully conserve anything; hence “conservatism” becomes nothing but a flimsy parachute that provides a bit of drag as we plummet into the abyss.

    Make out with fags in front of gay bars that hosted Islamic massacres! For Conservatism and the Preservation of Western Civilization!

    The Dread Lord Jesus will do well when He so sorely smites us.

    I say I “used to” be surprised that people failed to grasp this. Then, I realized that this is why democracy is not an option for any complex, consequential decision. Most people do well to manage their immediate affairs with competence, and are obviously not capable – either through lack of intellect or lack of will – of penetrating through to the inner logic of an idea, and of therefore understanding what the consequences of adopting it will be.

    In other words, they’re like most people I’ve played chess with; because they can’t think more than a move or two in advance, they are constantly being forced to make bad moves. And I’m not particularly great at chess.

    Once upon a time, when the realities of life were more ineluctable, plenty of intelligent men also became men of martial might, accustomed to aggression. Now, the realities of modern insulation from reality seem to funnel people neatly to extremes. Intelligent people may see the problems, but are unlikely to inspire confidence or loyalty in fighting men; fighting men kill more efficiently than ever (aided by technology), but throw their bodies at endless, pointless wars fought for the interests of the Left. I’ve tried to befriend some men whose strengths and weaknesses compliment each other, since none of us is really “the whole package.” All of them could be nobles; one of them could be a king – strong body, strong heart, a mind that is not capable of seizing the harder truths under its own power, but which is strong enough to see them easily when explained to him. Apprehension of Truth, I’ve come to believe, has more to do with a good will than a good mind. God expects us all to have a good will; He knows we don’t all have good minds. He shows the light of Truth to them that will take it. We try to better ourselves.

    Nevertheless, I am skeptical that there is much human hope, even assuming that there is an (unplanned) collapse that doesn’t result in them simply letting the nukes fly as a last “F-U” and/or favor to the Sierra Club. I often see little hope, apart from a direct, divine intervention. By the time we were born, the checkmate, humanly speaking, was already guaranteed.

    I’m an ardent Catholic, so I know the game is rigged the other way. I know this present crisis of the Church and Christendom must be either reversed or, failing that, the end of the world must now come. Figuring out what to do personally, so as not to answer God on Doomsday that I was merely sitting around waiting for Him to come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, is another thing.

    1. “Make out with fags in front of gay bars that hosted Islamic massacres! For Conservatism and the Preservation of Western Civilization!”

      Excellent comment. Professional degenerates like Milo and Gavin seem mostly upset that they won’t have a job in a society dominated by Islamic radicals and the spawn of Tumblr. Trendy gays and manly rock stars are HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC/HARAM JIDDAN in our progressive society free of hate.

      Have you checked your e-mail recently? I e-mailed you about an article for this site, I would love to have a read on your perspective and worldview down in an article somewhere.

      1. Forgive the delay in reply. I haven’t checked my email yet, but I’ll do it Sunday afternoon. I’ve received some very good news recently, which I’ll mention soon on the blog, but it has put me on the spot to get a lot of things together for a trip overseas. Still, I look forward to reading what you sent; hopefully we can make something happen before I’m incommunicado for a good while.

        I’m not sure what email you used, but if you used the email for my previous comment, it won’t work. I’ve sent a good email address along on this one, just in case.

  2. Anyone “right wing” advocating anything other than total executive control by a monarch is a joke.

    1. My sentiments exactly.

  3. if I remember correctly. It took less than a year from the U.S. Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling for the edgy edge of the conservative Right to reach the conclusion that homosexuals should join the right-wing coalition.

    Mainstream cons. like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly , despite being labeled as ‘cucks’ , take a stand against homosexuality – at least they got that part right. On average, the ‘ right’ is smarter and less conformist than the ‘left’, but that leads them to sometimes embrace silly ideas or fads.

  4. There’s nothing remotely Rightist or even cuckservative about Milo. He is a homosexual doing what it is in the nature of homosexuals to do: transgress the rules of public decorum in order to disrupt the social peace and draw narcissistic attention to himself. Indeed, the real zugzwang here may be that his antics force his ultra-Leftist, “politically correct” opponents to take a formally Rightist stance in spite of themselves. Consider the following excerpt from one of the linked articles:

    “In another opinion piece for The Tab, student Aleisha Flores says it doesn’t make sense that Yiannopolous is talking at Rutgers because he’s British. “I just honestly want to know how and why he thinks he can talk to us about American education, Black Lives Matter, feminism, and other issues that affect people today, especially when none of it affects him,” she writes.”

    So, Leftist cosmopolitanism notwithstanding, it’s a bad thing for foreigners to meddle in the affairs of local communities after all. We may make a patriot of her yet!

    1. Aleisha Flores is a novice leftist with much to learn yet. The seasoned radical’s response to Milo would be to call out his obvious cisnormativity and implicit white identity which is highly problematic and racist in a post-colonial society such as the United Kingdom.

  5. Or we just keep playing the game until the Left defeats itself. If Leftism could continue forever, it wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

    Societies rarely move right, and never very far right. They move left until they disintegrate in a war of all against all. Then a bunch of thugs build castles, call themselves “lords” and offer the local farmers protection in exchange for food. The strongest lord proclaims himself king, and you have a feudal monarchy. No one argued for it, it just happened organically.

    1. Aurelius Moner, above, notes that in the past “plenty of intelligent men also became men of martial might.” Thugs aren’t intelligent men. An acquaintance of mine who is a drummer in a jazz trio played recently at a Mafia 4th of July party in outer Brooklyn — I was there for awhile; the “lord”-thug appeared to be of barely average intelligence, if that, while his “retainers” were subnormal in a horrible, disturbing sort of way, even to the extent of having twisted, twitching, Orc-like faces. But I don’t think that people like that would take over, making castles out of their pizza-joints. They’re too stupid. And I don’t think that it’s quite true that “a bunch of thugs buil[t] castles” during the European “Dark Ages.” Weren’t these castle-builders the descendants of German warlords who could hardly have maintained their status had they merely been thugs?

  6. A very interesting piece, as per usual from Mr. Yuray. I wonder, however, if he is engaging in too much of a compression of American conservative history.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that Whittaker Chambers or James Burnham were of a far greater intellectual caliber than Mark Levin or Rich Lowry. Likewise, there’s no doubt that Dwight Eisenhower (and arguably Reagan) was a man of prudence who saw national unity and greatness as his primary goal rather than constantly preening about a yellowed document with no salvific power.

    The Republican Party of the mid and pre-FDR days was a far different beast than the yapping Pomeranian it has become in the 21st century.

    1. Hadley Bishop July 13, 2016 at 8:13 am

      I never saw much of interest in Chambers. Burnham, on the other hand, is an underrated figure.

  7. Great article, Mark. Thanks.

Comments are closed.